SUMMARY: The case arising from the timeshare contract should be heard by the Consumer Court.

13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation

E.2019 E.2019/1192 K.2019/9669 T.10.10.2019

Article 2 of the Law No. 4077 on the Protection of Consumers, as amended by Law No. 4822, states that “This law covers all kinds of consumer transactions in which the consumer is one of the parties in the goods and services markets for the purposes specified in the first article”. In Article 3 of the Law, goods refers to movable goods subject to shopping, immovable goods for residential and holiday purposes, and software, audio, video and similar intangible goods prepared for use in electronic media. Seller; It includes real or legal persons who offer goods to consumers within the scope of public legal entities. Consumer is defined as a natural or legal person who acquires, uses or benefits from the goods or services for commercial or non-professional purposes. In order for a legal transaction to be considered to be within the scope of Law No. 4077, there must be a legal transaction regarding the sale of goods and services between the parties defined above within the purpose of the law.

The concrete dispute arises from the use of the immovable subject to the timeshare between the parties, and it is understood that this contractual relationship is within the scope of Law No. 4077, since immovable properties for housing and vacation purposes are also covered by the Law pursuant to Article 3/c of Law No. 4077 amended by Law No. 4822.

Article 23 of the Law No. 4077 stipulates that all kinds of disputes related to the implementation of this Law shall be heard by the consumer courts. Since the dispute between the parties is within the scope of the Law on Consumer Protection, the Consumer Court is authorized to hear the case. In that case, while the court should make a decision on the lack of jurisdiction, the decision made in writing by examining the merits of the matter is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires reversal.

According to the acceptance, this issue has been subject to criticism, considering that ... is not included in the title of the decision and it is not clearly understood in the decision whether the case against him has been separated or not.

2-According to the reason for reversal, it is not necessary to examine the other objections of the plaintiff at this stage.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained in subparagraph 1 above, the appealed judgment is DISMISSED, for the reasons explained in subparagraph 2 above, it is not necessary to examine the appellate objections of the plaintiff at this stage, the prepaid fee may be refunded upon request, and it was unanimously decided on 10/10/2019, with the decision correction path open within 15 days from the notification in accordance with Article 440/I of the HUMK.